The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

>> ^lampishthing:

Wikipedia says owls and foxes. I wonder would cats go for them too?>> ^rougy:
I guess that's how a lot of the little guys die: they get their heads stuck in something like that and can't get it out.



Most likely.

I was doing research for a hedgehog character in a story I was writing, and I read that a lot of them got their heads stuck in Dairy Queen Blizzard tops and died as a result. It happened so often that DQ finally adjusted the size of the lid so that it would happen less often.

Can't find the link.

I also noticed in this video that when it tried to lift its front legs, they couldn't touch the toilet paper tube.

(yes...I'm having a busy day....)

The title states exactly what happened. The fact that you expected *controversy affirms that perhaps there is some. I'm certain Chris Matthews thought so, which is obviously why he immediately cut him off. I don't know if you've heard about the stereotype associated with black people and watermelons. Why did he say watermelons instead of ... any other fruit on Earth? He might as well have said Obama couldn't sell fried chicken and grape drink. I'll give Rather the benefit of the doubt that it was just a shitty choice of words, but it's funny sometimes (maybe not this time) how racism will slip out by accident.

c.f. Katko v. Briney.

Ideally you would use the least force (of the tools at your disposal) that is necessary to stop the theft. What lesser force could Briney have effectively used? He had already tried locking and boarding up everything, to no avail, and he certainly couldn't afford a human guard. A booby trap that dials 911 and shoots a tranquilizer dart at the criminal is a bit above the level of technology that he had to work with circa 1970 in rural Iowa.

Quote from Netrunner: they both owe each other restitution.

Precisely, they're now even.

Here, read some jurisprudence on the many variations on this theme. It's actually rather complicated

>> ^RedSky:
Just to point out, this is from mid-late 2008.


Very true. The reason I posted it, and believe it to still be relevant is because it justifies the opinion that I had in response to enoch's post. I don't think America would involve themselves directly in a conflict with Iran, but rather fund militant groups to pressure change within their government. Similar to what we did in the Afgan/russia conflict. In many south American conflicts in the 70's. In the procurment of Hawaii, panama, and Iraq in the 80's. There is an excellent book about this topic if anyone is interested:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3o2BaNiJksC&dq=overthrow+book&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=_f6HS8-uBJHh8Qby-tjDDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=r
esult&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=overthrow%20book&f=false

alizarin is clearly a bipolar nut case because his recollection of events are off. Take this guy off the streets!

>> ^Raaagh:
>> ^alizarin:
This whole thing reminds me of a Harvard study I read about in college - The psychologist shows people a picture of two men having an argument in a subway train. One has a razor in his hand the other is unarmed. When people were shown the image briefly and then asked who was holding the razor 50% said it was the black man, when it was actually the white man. I failed that test then and it was sobering - you can be racist and not realize it or intend it. I think I'd pass it today but I don't think the average person would....

You read the study? And you participated?

>> ^alizarin:
This whole thing reminds me of a Harvard study I read about in college - The psychologist shows people a picture of two men having an argument in a subway train. One has a razor in his hand the other is unarmed. When people were shown the image briefly and then asked who was holding the razor 50% said it was the black man, when it was actually the white man. I failed that test then and it was sobering - you can be racist and not realize it or intend it. I think I'd pass it today but I don't think the average person would....


You read the study? And you participated?

>> ^alizarin:
This whole thing reminds me of a Harvard study I read about in college - The psychologist shows people a picture of two men having an argument in a subway train. One has a razor in his hand the other is unarmed. When people were shown the image briefly and then asked who was holding the razor 50% said it was the black man, when it was actually the white man. I failed that test then and it was sobering - you can be racist and not realize it or intend it. I think I'd pass it today but I don't think the average person would....


I've seen similar studies and I'm not calling them BS, but in the example you just gave, as the viewing duration goes to zero, you expect 50% of people to choose the black man if nobody was racist. That's just random guessing because you didn't have time to fully parse the image.

This whole thing reminds me of a Harvard study I read about in college - The psychologist shows people a picture of two men having an argument in a subway train. One has a razor in his hand the other is unarmed. When people were shown the image briefly and then asked who was holding the razor 50% said it was the black man, when it was actually the white man. I failed that test then and it was sobering - you can be racist and not realize it or intend it. I think I'd pass it today but I don't think the average person would....

>> ^spoco2:

If you can think up a way to make everyone happy in this debate... then you're a genius!


Use P2P to promote your music the Nine Inch Nails way.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15124

$750,000 from the special edition straight in to their pocket minus the cost of producing the package and shipping.

There was another story that I can't find a link to of a San Franciscan musician who languished for years ignored by big labels until he put his music up on P2P with his email address. Within days he started receiving requests to play live with offers of appearence fees, travel costs covered etc. Overnight he went from untouchable by labels to making a pretty fine living travelling and making his music. He has never sold a CD or single.

Another good read is:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rIYYW8s1GvkC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=musician+using+p2p+to+book+live+shows&source=bl&ots=s2HPom0-Gt&sig=rqi8GxI94pa-
XKL0Uwg-2I0WhMI&hl=en&ei=a-3BSrD6EseBkQXGrIm1BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=musician%20using%20p2p%20to%20book%
20live%20shows&f=false

Chapter 13 (sry bout the huge link, google books is a bit meh ; )

Obviously, some people don't have the know how or don't want to spend the time to manage their own affairs to maximise their profits, but it's a very viable business and people are using it.

^ I like what the Christopher Commission's recommendations were.

Looks like they did a 5-year follow-up, and while the statistics had shown improvement, there was little in the way of structural reform that might help prevent new flareups.

Is there an advocacy group that's trying to push for some sort of legislative reform?

"What had made us give up te simple life for the city? That question still bewitches archeologists, because to explain it is to understand the very soul of humanity"

Overly dramatic, as the question has been already answered comprehensively, (it's all about the agriculture), and shouldn't really bewitch anyone anymore. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fate of Human Societies., the Pulitzer Prize winning book from Jared Diamond. This book rationally answers the question and one hell of a lot of other nagging questions I've had.

Edit: In watching this I think the producers indulge some theories based on their dramatic appeal. Like the Warfare theory of why people started living in cities. The guy talks about warriors and warrior classes and leaders - specialized jobs that could only exist in a settled, (already city like), society. Maybe they built the walls and such for warfare reasons, but the city living aspects must have been already there.

>> ^NetRunner:

Officers are put on administrative leave and an investigation is launched by the very cops that work the force. Don't for a second believe Internal Affairs Division isn't run by the same people who work the force, because it is. Those investigating the police are also police officers. Read the independent Christopher Commission report on the LAPD after Rodney King and the Rampart incident...

It is alarming, therefore, that no outside review, including our own, has found the operations of internal affairs divisions in any of the major U.S. cities satisfactory. cited

internal investigators conducted group interviews of the police involved. As the Christopher Commission noted, this allowed officers under investigation to "get their stories straight." cited

Internal Affairs divisions are often reluctant to push for criminal prosecution of fellow police personnel... cited

So, I think this sort of behavior, although probably frowned upon by the department, won't be treated with sufficient punishment (i.e., expulsion, jail time).

>> ^joedirt:
LOL.. Here we have the example of someone pulling statistics out of their ass. Per mile and per hour a plane is safer... but also the same person says planes are three / ten / or order of magnitude more dangerous (as in deadly?).
Trust me, getting in a car is a lot more dangerous.

Um, no, I'll trust the correct statistics that I just quoted above.

Fatal may be a different matter, as most car crashes are not fatal, while most plane crashes are. (of course leaving out blood clots from flying)

From 1997 Newsweek, cars have .94 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, while trains have .04 deaths and planes and buses each came out the same with .01 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.


As I already said, I don't accept risk per mile as a valid statistic, unless you want to admit to me that walking is extremely dangerous and being an astronaut is very safe. No! These modes of transport are for inherently different spatial scales, and the fact that my plane is covering a lot of distance doesn't make me feel safe about it.

Even if you play some number games with hours spent on the road or in the air.. Planes are most dangerous take off or landing. So to compare to hours instead of miles, just rough ballpark assume a car averages 30 mph and planes average 300mph. Factor of 10 maybe. So deaths goes to cars. I would also say injuries go to car travel as well as financial risk.

I don't need your rough ballpark numbers, I already quoted the correct numbers. The AVERAGE car is 4 times more likely to be in a fatal accident, per hour, compared to the average commercial airliner. But I'm not average. 69% of road fatalities relate to drinking and speeding. I do neither. A huge amount of road fatalities are from rural, non-highway roads which I never travel on. I wear my seatbelt.

Here, maybe this will convince you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OyuGJJ6rKQ0C&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=taxi+fatalities+per+mile&source=bl&ots=zqhhjfksFG&sig=U1LhoIUSpsUrji7RA25kyBaYjVA&
hl=en&ei=-DZfStbgFo7cNvOKgMAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

To summarize, if you don't look at averages but take the demographics of people who actually fly, say a safe 40 year old, they are more likely to die on a 600 mile plane trip than if they had driven the same distance.

So yes, for very long flights the plane still comes out ahead. There are plenty of other situations where the car comes out ahead. And if you put a professional driver in the car, as in a bus (not like they're even that well trained) they'll beat the plane by any metric.

And you seem to THINK you have more control because of how you drive, but you don't.

Numerous experts on defensive driving would disagree with you. So would I. So would the analysis that I just quoted saying that the average, somewhat safe driver beats airplanes for trips of 600 miles.

A man's view will always differ from a woman's on this topic.

I have male friends that have no use for Porn and can't be bothered. I have female friends that love porn (books, magazines or video) and love it as a natural progression to their tastes.

It is truly a personal thing. And I think the industry satisfies a huge sexually frustrated population out there. (Male and Female). I'm sure it eliminates allot of sex crimes. Sexually frustrated people need to relieve their tension. Not everyone has a partner in life. Face the Fact!

On the same token, Porn can also be a marriage/relationship breaker in the same way "World of Warcraft" ruins relationships. It provides an escape in an already troubled relationship. When this happens, the true problems within the relationship never get resolved and things begin to crumble.

I'm sorry but I have to take the side of "both sides" here.
1). The porn industry is demeaning to women. Checks and balances will never filter out the scum. Some companies value their “actors” and treat them professionally. Some actors are self employed and run their own websites. Pornography is a multi-million dollar a year industry and where there is that much money, there will always be filth around the edges. Porn can be offensive and disgusting when people are taken advantage of and encouraged or forced to do something that is out of their comfort zone or when things are drastically out of it’s original intent or context.

2). Sex itself is neither filthy nor ugly. When it is between two consulting adults, that’s their business whether they want to be filmed or not. Some people just seem to like filming themselves (Male and female). I personaly, would never film myself or someone else but that is just me. Porn can be sexy when both sides are enjoying it. To even imply that sex is wrong in any form is based on literature originating from Chritianity. Sexual Desire was powerful and could not be controlled by the church and was therefore deemed against God’s will.


“Obedient Christians as sexually active children of God’s will refrain even from the irrational appetite, because otherwise they are heinous fornicators.”
The making of fornication By Kathy L. Gaca
The incubus was sexual desire made real and labelled a demon before god and people were put to death by the church for having sexual thoughts.

I could go on, but like any argument like this it is not “This” is right and “That” is wrong!
There is not light without darkness and after darkness there shall always be light. Ying Yang!